Sudan: Darfur

Baroness Amos: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Hilary Benn) has made the following Statement.
	The Government are gravely concerned about the situation in Darfur, western Sudan. The UN estimates that the fighting has led to the internal displacement of over 750,000 people, with about 130,000 refugees sheltering in Chad. The civilian population is in a precarious state. Humanitarian requirements for food, water and shelter are enormous, but access remains limited. Civilian protection is a major concern with reports of systematic attacks on civilians, including killings, rape, pillage and destruction of livelihoods. The approaching rainy season, due to start in mid-May, will add to the problems, increasing the risk of epidemics and hindering the movement of relief supplies.
	The humanitarian ceasefire agreement, signed on 8 April, is a welcome step forward in resolving the crisis in Darfur. The parties must now live up to those commitments and allow international monitoring with full access to the areas and people affected.
	James Morris, head of the World Food Programme, has just returned from a mission to Sudan. I met him on 4 May and discussed the grave humanitarian situation and the need for the international community to do more.
	I have therefore today agreed an additional £10 million from our contingency reserve for the continuing and severe humanitarian needs in Darfur. This will bring total UK commitments for Darfur to £19.5 million. The UK is the second biggest donor to the Darfur crisis, after the US. Additional information on the UK response to date is set out below.
	October to December 2003
	Early assistance for organisations with some access (albeit very limited and variable) to Darfur:
	Save the Children UK (for north Darfur) £0.5million
	World Food Programme £2 million
	International Committee of the Red Cross £1 million
	Assistance to refugees in eastern Chad:
	UN High Commission for Refugees £1 million
	Total financial assistance October to December 2003: £4.5 million
	Continuing pressure on the Sudanese Government to allow humanitarian agencies unimpeded access to affected populations and security to operate, and to stop the fighting.
	January to March 2004
	Following partial opening up of Darfur for humanitarian agencies, support to meet basic needs of affected population:
	UN Children's Fund £1 million
	Médecins Sans Frontières (for south Darfur) £1.15 million
	GOAL (for north Darfur) £0.58 million
	Action Contre la Faim (for north Darfur) £0.25 million
	Additional assistance to refugees in eastern Chad:
	World Food Programme £1 million
	UN High Commission for Refugees £1 million
	Total financial assistance October 2003 to March 2004: £9.5 million
	Support to UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs to improve its co-ordination and assessment capacity in response to the crisis:
	Senior humanitarian adviser based in Khartoum for three months (extended to six months)
	Three humanitarian affairs officers based in Geneina, El Fasher and Nyala for three months
	One support staff for one month through International Humanitarian Partnership
	One focal point for UN co-ordination and logistics for one month through UN disaster assessment and co-ordination team
	Continuing pressure on the Sudanese Government to allow humanitarian agencies unimpeded access, protect civilians from attack and agree a ceasefire with international monitoring.
	Involvement in ceasefire talks between SLM/JEM and the Government of Sudan in N'Djamena.
	April 2004 onwards
	Oxfam (for north and south Darfur) £2.2 million
	Planned further contributions to UN and other international organisations.
	Total financial assistance to date: £1.7 million.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Baroness Amos: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement:
	The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is a key institution of the Belfast agreement. We in government want it to succeed and are committed to helping it to do so. It is in all our interests that we have a strong, independent and self-confident commission, which draws support from all parts of the community. It is from this position that we are approaching the coming year.
	We have listened to the criticism of the Human Rights Commission. We have also listened to the other side, those who see the commission doing the best job it can in difficult circumstances. We have thought carefully about the issues and how to address them.
	We will shortly begin a process to recruit a new chief commissioner and a full set of commissioners to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. We expect the process to take some months, with the new chief commissioner and commissioners being announced in the autumn. We propose to invite a number of those commissioners to take office soon after appointment. We will do this after discussion with the chief commissioner-designate, who will also be invited to join early. He or she will not become chief commissioner until the end of Brice Dickson's appointment. The remainder of the incoming commissioners will take office on 28 February 2005, at which point those who have served two terms will leave.
	We will begin this process shortly. In the mean time we will be working on the details of the process. We will use search consultants. An independent assessor will be involved throughout and there will be a human rights expert, alongside the independent assessor, on the panel which interviews candidates.
	This does not mean that the current commission is winding down—far from it. They have a great deal still to achieve.
	From the outset, each commissioner has played an important role in promoting a culture of rights in Northern Ireland. They will leave behind an impressive body of work which I believe history will judge kindly. They have served in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, at times under great pressure. For this, they deserve our gratitude and our support in their ongoing work.
	For our part, the Government remain committed to establishing a broadly based forum on the Bill of Rights. We will engage the political parties in a renewed effort to build consensus to this end.
	We understand there is much detail behind these proposals which people will want to discuss. I will be inviting the parties to put forward their views. I am clear that these discussions must respect the terms of the Belfast agreement and the independence of the commission. In this context, we will also conclude the review of the commission's powers.
	I would urge all parts of the community to work with us over the coming year. There are significant opportunities ahead to build on the great progress we have seen since in the field of rights since the Belfast agreement was reached in 1998. It is imperative that all parts of the community take those opportunities and everyone receives the same benefits.

Infant Death Convictions

Lord Goldsmith: My Statements of 19 January and 5 February gave details of a review process established following the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Angela Cannings. I wish to inform the House of progress.
	The review process is now well advanced. A thorough search to identify all potentially relevant cases has been undertaken, and the process has been extended to include cases involving carers. These measures have resulted in an increase in the total number of cases subject to review from 258 to 298.
	To ensure thorough and independent scrutiny of all cases, a three-stage review process has been established. Every case file is subject to a preliminary review by a Crown Prosecution Service area to ascertain its key characteristics. Cases are then passed to a central review team comprising prosecutors who are highly experienced in complex criminal casework. A smaller number of cases are then referred to an interdepartmental group, for a final decision on whether the legal representatives of the convicted persons should be notified that there may be features in a case that warrant further consideration by the Court of Appeal or the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The interdepartmental group works under my direction, and includes representatives from the police, Crown Prosecution Service and Criminal Cases Review Commission.
	Reviews have been completed in 97 cases. In 38 of these the person convicted is still serving a custodial sentence.
	A significant further number of cases are at an advanced stage of review.
	Letters have been sent to the legal representatives of five convicted persons, notifying them that it may be appropriate for the safety of their clients' convictions to be considered further by the Court of Appeal or, if appropriate, the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Two of those convicted are sentenced to life imprisonment and remain in custody. Two have already unsuccessfully sought to appeal their convictions.
	I have made the Court of Appeal aware of the action I am taking and have liaised closely with the chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to ensure that any cases referred to these bodies will be treated expeditiously. My office stands ready to refer appropriate case files to the CCRC.
	The fact that a case has been referred to legal representatives of the convicted person does not amount to a positive determination that their conviction is unsafe. Should any appeals result from this review, it will be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide independently whether to contest the appeal.
	Sixteen live cases were identified by the CPS as potentially affected by the Cannings judgment. Fifteen have been reviewed. Two cases have been discontinued: a Hampshire case discontinued before trial and a Coventry case discontinued before retrial.
	It would not be appropriate to place in the public domain the names of defendants or convicted persons in these cases. This will be a decision for them, following advice from their legal representatives.
	CPS areas, the central review team and the interdepartmental group continue to accord this work the highest priority. I am determined that the review should be completed as soon as possible, to bring to an end this period of uncertainty for all those involved. I shall keep the House informed of further progress.

Future Rapid Effect System

Lord Bach: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Adam Ingram MP) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Ministry of Defence has approved the launch of a two-year assessment phase for the future rapid effect system (FRES). FRES is the most significant armoured vehicle project for the next decade. It is central to the Army's future force structure, providing a family of network-capable armoured vehicles as part of a coherent and highly deployable medium-weight force. It will deliver a step-change in the capability of our forces to meet the challenges of future expeditionary operations. FRES is also intended to meet the need to replace a number of in-service vehicles, such as SAXON, with modern, battle-winning equipment.
	The assessment phase will be led by a systems house, independent of product or manufacturing capability, selected for its programme management, risk management and systems engineering capabilities. The successful candidate will be selected via competition and a contract should be placed in late 2004. The systems house will provide an objective view of ideas and technologies, which may be applicable to FRES, and of the risks inherent in complex "system of systems" integration. It will exploit and build on previous work wherever possible. In addition, as part of an incremental acquisition approach, the assessment phase will include a range of risk reduction and technology demonstration work to examine the risks of relevant technologies and to determine if they are suitable for FRES, allowing the insertion of new technologies as they mature.
	The FRES project also provides excellent opportunities for the UK defence industry to engage in the programme in line with defence industrial policy. The assessment phase will reach as wide and deep as possible to harness the broadest range of industrial capability, creativity and innovation. The systems house will therefore need to work closely with companies in the armoured fighting vehicle and other related sectors to draw on their expertise. There will also be opportunities for such companies to participate in the technology demonstration work during the assessment phase.
	Options for future phases of the programme have deliberately been kept open, but the way forward for FRES announced today provides the right foundations for the project and for the successful delivery of this important capability.

Armed Forces Pension Scheme

Lord Bach: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	During Standing Committee consideration of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill in February, concern was expressed that the Government should provide more independent oversight of the arrangements provided for the Armed Forces in this area. I made clear to Committee members that I recognised the intent behind these concerns and we have considered how we might respond. We have now decided that we will give the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) a role in externally validating the provisions of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS). We plan that this will be done in the context of their quinquennial valuation of the AFPS, though more frequent examinations of the scheme provisions could be undertaken if wider developments justified this.
	The broad intent is that the AFPRB would compare the scheme provisions with practice elsewhere in the economy and consider the extent to which they meet the recruitment and retention needs of the Armed Forces. The review body's observations would then be made public in a supplement to the following annual report and the government would also make public its response to these observations. I am pleased to say that the chairman of the review body and his colleagues have agreed to take on this additional responsibility and we are now in discussion on the detail to determine the timing of the first such review. I am confident that this change will provide for more independence in reviewing the terms of the AFPS while equally helping us to ensure coherence across the broader remuneration package, comprising both pay and pensions. It should also provide additional reassurance for Service personnel by ensuring effective independent validation of the appropriateness of the pension provisions for our Armed Forces.

Service Children's Education: Key Targets 2004–05

Lord Bach: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Mnisterial Statement.
	The chief executive of Service Children's Education has been set the following Key Targets for 2004–05.
	Key Target 1
	Sustain threshold level performance at each of the key stages 1, 2 and 3 by remaining at least 3 per cent ahead of national (England) achievement.
	Sustain the percentage of pupils obtaining A*-C at GCSE as a three-year rolling average.
	Sustain the percentage of students obtaining A-E at A-level as a three-year rolling average.
	Key Target 2
	Sustain SCE's notional position in the English local education authority league tables, within the leading 25 (of 150) LEAs at each of key stages 1, 2 and 3.
	Key Target 3
	At the higher levels of attainment (i.e. level 3+ at key stage 1, level 5+ at key stage 2, level 6+ at key stage 3) match national level of performance in 50 per cent of the 12 subject elements in 2004, rising in equal steps to 66 per cent in 2006.
	Key Target 4
	For GCSE, show improvement in average points scores by achieving at least the England capped upper quartile figure (38.8).
	Key Target 5
	To achieve grade 4 or above (on the Ofsted seven-point scale) in at least 85 per cent of schools inspected, in each of the following areas:
	Overall effectiveness of the school
	Overall standards achieved
	Pupils' attitudes, values and personal qualities
	The quality of education provided by the school
	The leadership and management of the school
	Key Target 6
	To demonstrate customer satisfaction with a survey result of 69 per cent satisfaction or more from Army continuous attitude surveys.

Survey Information

Lord Bach: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The first duty under the Freedom of Information Act to be implemented by government departments was the requirement to prepare publication schemes. The MoD's publication scheme is accessible via the Internet at www.foi.mod.uk. Since the scheme was published in November 2002, we have continued to look for opportunities to extend the commitment to make information available proactively. To date, a further five classes of information have been added to the original publication scheme and a process for identifying and adding more is in place. The new classes cover information provided by the Army Historical Branch, the Naval Historical Branch, Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) Corporate Documents, Defence Data Definitions, and Defence Statistics.
	As a further step in this process, I am announcing today that a new class of information will be included to require publication of the consolidated results of corporate-level quantitative opinion surveys carried out to gauge the attitude of members of the public to the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces. The results of similar surveys undertaken internally with a random cross-section of the department's own staff will also be published. The results of the external corporate-level surveys undertaken since 1999 are also being placed in the Library of the House.
	From October 2004, we also plan to release the results of the continuous attitude surveys which are undertaken by each of the three Services to measure the morale and understand the concerns of their personnel across a spectrum of issues. These surveys are sent out annually to a random sample of around 8,000 military personnel at all ranks. This commitment to publish the results of these surveys will also be reflected through a class of information in the MoD's publication scheme.

Defence Medical Education and Training Agency

Lord Bach: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The following key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Defence Medical Education and Training Agency (DMETA) for the financial year 2004–05:
	Key Target 1: Deployable Personnel
	To meet 100 per cent of the commander in chief's requirements for secondary care personnel under DMETA command for operational deployments.
	Key Target 2: Military Training
	To ensure that 80 per cent of all DMETA personnel, whose medical category permits, achieve their service's annual mandatory individual military training.
	Key Target 3: Training Success
	a. Initial Training (Phase 2).
	To provide initial training (phase 2) that meets the requirements, professional standards and timescales defined by the single services.
	b. Career, Professional and Continuation Training (Phase 3).
	To provide career, professional and continuation training (phase 3) that meets the requirements, professional standards and timescales defined by the single services.
	Key Target 4: Efficiency and Cost Management
	a. DMETA Estate
	Ensure the rationalisation and efficient usage of the current DMETA estate, reducing the balance sheet value of the estate as at 1 April 2003 by at least 50 per cent by 2010, thereby reducing the cost of training.
	b. Cost Measurement
	To develop an output cost-based methodology for efficiency and unit cost performance measurement for implementation by April 2005.
	Key Target 5: Customer Focus
	To develop and implement by 1 April 2005 a measure of the extent to which customers value the quality of DMETA outputs.

Decent Homes

Lord Rooker: My right honourable friend the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today announcing my approval to 58 new schemes that could release up to £3 billion more investment to tackle another 170,000 homes and further reduce the number of non-decent social homes. This adds to the considerable achievement of there already being 1 million fewer social homes below the decency standard than seven years ago.
	I am also announcing a new scheme which would enable proposed stock transfers with a funding gap to go ahead. This will ensure that the option of a stock transfer is available to those cases where the stock has a negative value.
	The new schemes draw on funding using our three designated routes for councils which need extra resources to make their stock decent.
	I have awarded 12 local authorities places on the fourth round of the Arms Length Management Programme. These are Bassetlaw, Brent, Ealing, Eastbourne, Hammersmith & Fulham, Newark & Sherwood, Nottingham, Rotherham, Sandwell, Sheffield (partial), Slough, and Wolverhampton. Together, the bids from these authorities are for over £1.8 billion and cover just under 114,000 non-decent homes.
	I have agreed nine new schemes under the private finance initiative. These are in Cheshire, Derby, Kent, Kirklees, the London Boroughs of Croydon, Islington and Lambeth, Manchester and West Wiltshire. We are making PFI credits of around £370 million available to tackle 3,300 non-decent homes as well as providing new and refurbished affordable housing and building new sheltered and supported housing.
	Thirty stock transfer schemes in 14 local authorities have been awarded places on the 2004 transfer programme: Broxbourne, Ellesmere Port & Neston, Halton, Hyndburn, Kings Lynn & West Norfolk, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Macclesfield, Mid Devon, North Somerset, Sedgefield, Stafford, West Lancashire-and seven more in four local authorities have had places held open: Manchester, North Norfolk, Preston, and Teesdale. Together they generate £1 billion of private sector investment to tackle 56,000 non-decent homes and keep the stock in good condition for 30 years.
	These announcements are a tremendous achievement which show that we are making great strides toward our aim, which I confirmed in the Sustainable Communities Plan in March 2003, of making all social housing decent by 2010.

UK Debt Management Office: Targets and Business Plan 2004–05

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Debt Management Office (DMO) is today publishing its business plan for 2004–05. The DMO's targets for 2004–05 are set out in the business plan. A brief commentary on last year's outturn in relation to the comparable targets will be included in the DMO's report and accounts for 2003–04. A copy of the business plan has been placed in the Library of the House.

Department of Trade and Industry: Operating and Financial Review

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made the following Ministerial Written Statement.
	I am launching today a consultation on draft regulations for a statutory operating and financial review (OFR), following a recommendation of the Company Law Review and proposals set out in the Government's Modernising Company Law White Paper of July 2002. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House and the Vote Office.
	The OFR regulations will require quoted companies to provide a narrative report setting out the company's business objectives, its strategy for achieving them and the risks and uncertainties that might affect their achievement. It will require companies to report on other matters where these are necessary for an understanding of the business. These matters include employees, the environment and social and community issues. It is proposed that where directors believe that they have nothing to report on those matters, they will have to state that fact. The OFR will represent a move from reporting on past performance to an assessment of the future prospects of the company in both the short and the long term. It will enable shareholders to judge whether the directors' view of the business meets their own long-term investment needs and their own expectations of the way good companies should perform—companies that understand the importance of human capital, open dealings with customers and suppliers, and their impact on the environment and on the wider community.
	The OFR will apply to all quoted companies. These are companies registered in Great Britain that are either listed in the Uk or in any other EEA state or whose shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ. The regulations also implement related changes to the directors' report of other companies required by the Accounts Modernisation Directive.
	A number of quoted companies already prepare OFRs or adopt the broad approach set out in a guidance statement originally introduced by the Accounting Standards Board in 1993 and revised in 2003. The directors of those companies recognise that such reporting can contribute to the profile of the company and offer the market confidence about its management and prospects. The OFR regulations will provide directors with the opportunity to provide key information to shareholders within a statutory regime which will give reassurance on the quality of the information provided. It will enable the best companies to maintain and promote their high standards while allowing other companies to raise their standards. It will contribute to market stability, shareholder engagement, investment, company performance and corporate social responsibility. It will facilitate informed dialogue between directors and shareholders, encouraging responsible institutional investors to adopt an understanding of the particular businesses their investments rely upon.
	The Accounting Standards Board will be preparing a new reporting standard for the OFR. In addition, alongside the consultation, a working group chaired by Rosemary Radcliffe and representing a range of business, investor and wider interests, is publishing practical guidance for directors on the preparation of the OFR. I am extremely grateful to the working group for the hard work it has undertaken on this essential element of the OFR.
	The consultation period will end on 6 August. After taking into account responses to the consultation, I intend to lay the regulations before the end of the year, so that they can apply to accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. I hope that all those interested in this issue will respond to our consultation and help us to ensure that the OFR is an effective tool.

Energy Companies: Special Shares

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made the following Ministerial Written Statement.
	I wish to inform the House about the Government's decision on the future of special shares held in the British Energy Group, Nuclear Generation Decommissioning Fund Ltd, National Grid Transco plc, Viridian, Phoenix Natural Gas, Scottish Power, and Scottish and Southern Energy.
	The Secretary of State for Scotland and I jointly hold a special share in British Energy plc. I hold a special share in British Energy's English operating subsidiary, British Energy Generation Limited, and the Secretary of State for Scotland holds a special share in the Scottish operating subsidiary, British Energy Generation (UK) Limited. I also hold a special share in the Nuclear Generation Decommissioning Fund Ltd (NGDF) which would be subsumed into the new Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF) being created as part of the proposed restructuring of British Energy. In addition, I also hold a special share in National Grid Transco plc. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland holds special shares in Viridian, and Phoenix Natural Gas. The Secretary of State for Scotland holds special shares in Scottish Power, and Scottish and Southern Energy.
	Special shares in these companies require the consent of the relevant Minister for certain significant decisions affecting shareholdings, the structure of the company or disposal of certain assets. In particular government consent is required for any move which would allow a single person to own more than 15 per cent in any of the companies.
	We have been considering carefully the future of these shares which date back to the original privatisation of the companies in the light of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgments on special shares (including BAA) on 13 May 2003, and, in the case of British Energy, the proposed restructuring of the company. The Government have concluded that the current legal and regulatory framework now provides adequate protection of the public policy objectives, which the special shares were initially set up to cover. We will only maintain those which can be justified and are necessary in the public interest.
	Taking account of the ECJ judgments, the Government have decided to redeem the special shares held in National Grid Transco plc, Viridian, Phoenix Natural Gas, Scottish Power, and Scottish and Southern Energy.
	The Government have decided, however, that it would be justifiable to retain two key provisions of the British Energy special share: first, the provision to require anyone having purchased more than 15 per cent of the issued shares of British Energy to obtain the Government's consent; secondly, the provision requiring the consent of the appropriate Secretary of State for any disposal of a nuclear station by British Energy. It is proposed that both of these provisions will be amended to provide that government consent may be refused only on national security grounds. The nuclear security regime operated by the department's Office for Civil Nuclear Security is robust and comprehensive, and is designed to prevent unauthorised access to nuclear stations or nuclear material falling into inappropriate hands. But in the context of nuclear energy we believe it is justified and proportionate to the risks involved to retain these two particular special share provisions in the companies of the British Energy Group.
	Other provisions of the special shares in the British Energy Group would be given up on the same basis as for the conventional electricity companies. In light of the ECJ judgment it would not be justified to retain general powers over the commercial operations of the company. These rights have not protected, and will not protect, the Government's economic interest in British Energy. This interest arises from the Government's ultimate responsibility to ensure safe management and funding of BE's nuclear liabilities, which would always fall to government in the last resort given their duty to safeguard nuclear safety, security and environmental protection. For the future, it is the contractual arrangements we are putting in place as part of the restructuring that would compel British Energy to contribute to its liabilities and help to minimise demands on the taxpayer, and enable us to monitor the performance of the company.
	The special share in the NGDF will be retained and carried forward into the NLF if British Energy's restructuring is successful. The special share contributes to the protection of government's significant interest in ensuring that the NGDF/NLF company achieves its purpose of receiving, investing and ultimately paying out moneys for the decommissioning of British Energy's nuclear power stations.